Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

> One could make a better case that difference in the *semantics* of same
> named datatypes should be the same. But even there, OWL does *different
> things* with the datatypes (i.e., it treats them as constraints).

I don't see a strong case for that. I personally find it ridiculous if
in OWL
"1"^^xsd:int owl:sameAs "1"^^xsd:float
is a tautology, but in RIF
"1"^^xsd:int = "1"^^xsd:float
is inconsistent.

Best, Jos

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:29:12 UTC